Evolution, Long Periods, or Days

In our articles on the above named subject we have emphasized repeatedly that we cannot take so-called science for our guide and for the source of our information, but only the Holy Scriptures, which are, we firmly believe, the infallible Word of God.

Those who believe in evolution or in what is called “theistic evolution” (which is only another name for the same thing since it denies the separate creation of the species) which is also taught in Calvin College, prefer the opposite method: science so-called is the source of their information and the Bible is either ignored or an attempt is made to show that it can be brought into harmony with their unbelieving philosophy. And the latter is impossible.

Under the caption: “What Is Happening in the Christian Reformed Church?” Henry J. Kuiper writes the following paragraph on the question of theistic evolution:

“First of all, we point out the sympathy for theistic evolution (i.e. in the Christian Reformed Church, H.H.)—a theory which implies that the doctrine of creation can be harmonized with that of a gradual development, under divine guidance, of lower into higher forms of life, from plants to animals, and from animals to man. There are men of prominence in the Reformed Church of the Netherlands and in our own Church who advocate this theory and do not hesitate to assert that some day it may be demonstrated that man has descended from some ape-like ancestors. And that in the face of the biblical teaching that the first man was a direct divine creation, a perfect human being made in the image of God, in righteousness, holiness, and knowledge of the truth!

“To our amazement the Ecumenical Synod of Potchefstroom, which met last summer, adopted a report on Creation and Evolution, signed by five Dutch professors (A. Lever, Polman, Jonker, Oostendorp, and Gispen), which leaves room for the theory of theistic evolution. It made light of the objections which our Synod of 1953 raised against certain statements in an earlier report and declares: ‘Seen in this light the Reformed Ecumenical Synod wisely did not pronounce an opinion on the idea of so-called theistic evolution.’ It also stated blandly that the church should leave it to a Christian science to come to a well considered and fundamentally sound view in connection with this theory.’ The Ecumenical Synod adopting the report of the Dutch committee, did not even make the statement that even if it could be proved that many species of plants and animals were evolutions from lower forms of life, this should not be posited of man! It had nothing to say in explanation or defense of the teaching of Genesis 1but simply left the decision to the sacred cow of science!”

My question is: what are Kuiper and others going to do about this as well as about the question of the infallibility of Scripture and other questions. It is very well to write about the questions, but, in the meantime, all these errors are being taught in the churches and especially in Calvin College, as Kuiper well knows. Is it not high time that, instead of writing about all these things some very definite action were taken?

But now I must continue my discussion of the creation narrative in Genesis.

On the sixth day God created not only the animals but also man, the crown of the earthly creation.

Of this we read, first of all in Gen. 1:26-28: “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowls of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.”

And in the second chapter of Genesis we read a more detailed description of man: “And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life: and man became a living soul,” v. 7. And of the creation of the woman we read in vv. 20-23: “And Adam gave names to all the cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field: but for Adam there was not found a help meet for him. And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh thereof; And the rib which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.”

It is not our purpose to enter into a detailed interpretation of these passages. My purpose is simply to show that, if you believe that the narrative in Gen. 1and Gen. 2 about the creation of man is the Word of God, it is impossible to believe the theory of evolution, according to which man descended from the ape or some other animal; nor in the theory of long periods of millions of years. Notice:

1. That God created man on the sixth day. And that this sixth day was not a long period of millions or even billions of years is once more emphatically asserted in the end of the chapter where we read: “And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.” Remember that the whole creation was now finished, so that it is certain that the evening was determined by the setting of the sun and the morning by the rising of the same. The sixth day, therefore, was an ordinary day as we know it. Hence, those that maintain that man evolved from some lower animal during a long period of time, cannot possibly accept the account of Gen. 1.

2. That God created man in His own image and likeness. That was his unique distinction from all the rest of the creatures God had made. Those who maintain the theory of so-called theistic evolution or of long periods cannot accept this. The image of God consists, according to Scripture, in true knowledge of God, righteousness, and holiness. Is it possible or even conceivable that one of the higher animals, such as an ape, gradually developed into a rational-moral creature, endowed with the image of God, so that He knew God and loved Him with all his heart and mind and soul and strength? And having gradually developed into such a distinctive creature, did he lose that image all of a sudden?

—H.H.

About The Three PointsM

We are discussing the “Second Point.”

It is evident that, according to this second of the three points, there is in man, through the restraint of sin, some good left: he is not as morally evil as he would be if the power of sin were not restrained in his heart and nature. In other words, though through the fall man would have become totally depraved, in actual fact there is no totally depraved man in the world until the end of this age when the restraint of sin will be withdrawn.

It is true that it is only through “special grace” that man is regenerated so that he can hear the Word of God and believe in Christ. Only then can he perform what is called “spiritual good.” But by the restraint of sin and without being regenerated or, if you wish, through the power of “common grace” he can do much “natural good.” And this “natural good” includes many elements according to one of the originators of the “Three Points.” It refers to external righteousness, i.e. a walk in the way of righteousness in an external sense, receptivity for moral persuasion and for the truth, a will that is susceptible to good motives, a conscience that is receptive for good influences, and good inclinations and desires. All these remnants of so-called natural good remained in man after the fall. How this must be explained the Synod of 1924 did not say. But the chief exponent of the theory of common grace, Dr. A. Kuiper, offered an exp1anation. According to him, the power of common grace, with its restraining influence upon sin, operated immediately after the fall. If there had not been such a restraining influence and operation of common grace upon man after the fall, he would have become a devil, he would have sunk into eternal desolation and the development of the human race would have become impossible. He would have eternal death. But man did not fully die. And this can be explained only from the restraining influence of the Holy Spirit immediately after the fall. Because of this operation of the Spirit of God man did not become wholly corrupt, but he retained so life and light and a remnant of his original goodness. And this remnant of natural goodness is preserved in mankind throughout its development in history.

Virtually this is also the teaching of the second point. For it implies not only that there is a remnant of good left in man after the fall, but also that this remnant is constantly preserved in man and in the human race through the restraining influence of the Holy Spirit. This is literally expressed as follows: the Confessions teach “that God by the general operations of His Spirit, without renewing the heart of man, restrains the unimpeded breaking out of sin, by which human life in society remains possible.” Hence, according to the “Second Point,” the original good that is left in man since the fall is continuously preserved in man by the Holy Spirit. The remnant of original good is the capital with which the Holy Spirit works. Were there no good left in man after the fall there could be no further restraint. The corruption of man would then have been complete from the beginning. But even the good that is left in man would have been corrupted long ago if it were not for the continued restraint of sin by the Spirit of God.

The fruit of the theory of “common grace” as expressed in the Second Point of 1924 is evident. It is a denial of the antithesis between sin and grace, between Christ and the devil, between the Church and the world. It leads us right into the world. I am convinced that Dr. Kuyper Sr., who is the chief exponent of this theory, needed this theory when he entered into the world of politics and formed all sorts of alliances. If the natural man is, after all, not totally depraved but morally sound, though he is not regenerated, we can, to, be sure, not receive him as a member of the Church, but we can surely cooperate with him in the different spheres of the life of this world, in labor and industry, in politics and even in education. Then we can join labor unions and associations and, perhaps, even the lodge. Then there is no fundamental reason for our separate Christian Schools but it is, principally, much sounder to cooperate with the public schools of our land and try to improve them as much as possible. This is the principal reason why I combatted the theory of “common grace” long before 1924: as editor of the rubric “Our Doctrine” in The Banner. That is the reason why I refused to sign the “Three Points” in 1924 or even to promise that I would keep still about them. That is the reason, principally, why I was cast out of the Christian Reformed Church. And that, in my conviction, is also the reason why the Christian Reformed Church, in spite of all its show of beautiful buildings and fast outward expansion, is going on the rocks.

No longer does that Church dare to take a stand on many fundamental questions such as union membership, divorce, the mixed theological training in Nigeria, theistic evolution, the infallibility of Scripture.

You ask perhaps, with a shrug of the shoulder: is all this due to the adoption of the theory of “common grace” and of the “Three Points” in 1924?

My answer is: principally Yes.

When the Christian Reformed Church adopted that theory, it placed itself on a slippery downward road on which it cannot stop. For the theory of “common grace” is a denial of the antithesis and, therefore, leads us right into the world.

—H.H.